According to CrunchGear, as a follow on to the story directly below, the DMCA exemptions have been extended to cracking the encryption on an ebook to be read aloud, even if the book has controls to prevent it. Previously this was only legal if you were blind.
Wow! Can’t wait to find the original ruling.
But that already was legal since at least 2003.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
It’s explicitly called out here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html
Check point 6.
Yes, for the next three years, Americans can legally remove the DRM on any ebooks where the DRM is set to prevent read-aloud, and there isn’t a legitimate ebook edition that allows read-aloud.
It also applies if the DRM prevents the enabling of “screen readers that render the text into a specialized format”. I’m not quite sure what they mean by that.
The title is still wrong. The wording for that exception has not changed since 2003. We can not “now” do anything that we could not do last week.
Paul, a “screen reader” is a device aimed at the blind so they can read the content on a computer screen. It can render the text into braille, text-to-speech or some other kind of output:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Screen_reader
I was also of the mistaken impression for a while that this would let anyone remove DRM from kindle books, but after being corrected and doing more research, it’s really only possible if you have some kind of disability.
Frode, I don’t see why you think that the exemption is limited to those with a disability. Only item 3 on the list contains a restriction on who can perform the permitted circumvention. Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 contain restrictions on the purpose of the circumvention.
The text for item 6, the one related to e-books, does not contain any restriction on who can perform the circumvention nor any restriction on the purpose of the circumvention beyond the overall requirement that the usage be non-infringing. The only requirements are that the e-book in question be a literary work, that it not be available in any form that allows “enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format” (including Digital Talking Books), and of course that the usage will be non-infringing.
As others have already noted, this is not a new exemption. It is word-for-word identical to the existing exemption. The entire text of the specific exemption case is:
For those who care, 17 USC 101 defines:
The Register recommendation can be found here in detail:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/initialed-registers-recommendation-june-11-2010.pdf
The ebook entry starts at page 242, and she actually recommended that the ebook exemption be removed. Apparently the Librarian disagreed and decided to uphold the 2006 decision regardless.
Err.. page 246.
This may prove to be a real legal mess for writers.
The major legal problem with text to speech (TTS) is that it has never been clearly defined through a lawsuit or some other legal means as to what kind of right it is. No one can say with legal certainty that TTS is a right on its own, a part of the audio rights, or part of the ebook rights.
Some authors are saying that TTS is a right by itself, and that, unless publishers have contracted that right, neither they nor anyone else have any right to use TTS with an ebook.
Many of the major publishers are taking no stance because the issue is so unclear, and they use DRM (digital rights management) to prevent the ebook from being read with TTS because they don’t know if they have that right.
Some audiobook publishers are so leery of the unclear legal status of TTS that they refuse to contract a book that allows TTS in ebook format.
So, the Library of Congress who doesn’t have the power to define what kind of right it is is saying it is part of the ebook rights.
That means that audio and media companies may no longer risk buying audio and movie rights until this issue is settled, and audio and movie/media rights are often of more value than the book rights.
Where does this leave writers? In a serious mess and screwed, as usual.
IANAL, but I think publishers that are afraid to *not disable* TTS are mixing up TTS and audio versions of a book. An ebook with TTS *not disabled* (it is not *enabling* it, it is the default), is not an audiobook. When a customer has bought an ebook, they have the right to read it aloud, including reading it aloud for another person whether disabled or not. Or have another person reading it for them. Replace the reader with a robot reading the book aloud, what is the difference? Most people don’t have this kind of robot yet, so they use a TTS-capable ereader for it. That is just fair use.
The publishing world is in a bad shape if they feel they have to make efforts to prevent this kind of use.
So, if I were a publisher ( I’m not.) and I wasn’t worried about the TTS rights issue for some reason ( maybe I have a good lawyer or a congressperson in my pocket or my authors signed over ALL rights or something equally evil)
One way to deal with this issue would be to have “special” ebook editions that DO allow TTS and charge a hefty premium for them (double, triple what the non-TTS ebooks go for?) and then buyers wouldn’t be allowed (legally speaking) to unlock the TTS on the nonTTS editions because TTS editions WOULD be available, even if no one could afford them? Correct?
These exceptions only apply if there’s no alternative. Does the alternative have to be affordable?
As I said, Piet, the true legal definition of what kind of right or part of a right TTS is doesn’t exist. What you and I say it is doesn’t matter. What publishers say doesn’t matter.
If a publisher decides TTS is part of ebook rights, they may be sued by the author or a group like the Authors Guild, and they know this.
Litigation is costly so everyone has erred on the side of caution by cutting off the TTS feature unless they have express permission from the author.
Meanwhile, some audio and media companies are avoiding the fight completely by buying rights they are certain of.
Andy, “special” versions may be made, but I doubt this would happen because an overpriced edition very few would buy isn’t worth the cost of losing an audio or movie deal.
How would having a TTS version preclude an audio or movie deal? There’s nothing preventing a publisher from releasing an audio book version – while TTS “does the job”, it’s not the same as hearing a human voice. Sometimes you’ll even have multiple audio book versions of the same book, simply because the narrators have different voices.
As for movies, what do they have to do with TTS?
Incidentally, what this exemption means (and has always meant) is that authors and publishers don’t have the rights to restrict people with disabilities (lets leave the broader public out of it for now) from having access to their work. Text-to-speech and being able to read the ebooks on screen readers is part of ebook rights, for now. You can certainly put DRM that restricts it, but if a version of an ebook that allows TTS doesn’t exist, people are allowed to remove the DRM without legal repercussions. What it also means is that the tools for doing so, are legal as long as that’s their advertised purpose.
You’ll note that these are temporary exemptions and are based on the current market situation. They may be removed the next time this comes up again if it’s found that access for disabled people to read ebooks is no longer a problem. It was almost removed this time even, because the AFB didn’t do their homework and failed to provide the necessary documentation.
“So, the Library of Congress who doesn’t have the power to define what kind of right it is is saying it is part of the ebook rights.”
Well I don’t know where you get that idea from.
If you might also note they just curtailed Apple’s ability to only allow users to use AT&T sim cards on the iPhones they legally bought.
So for some organization “you say” is NOT legally allowed to define DCMA they sure have defined several serious legal points about copyright.
I don’t get all the hoopla. This is just a renewal (for another 3 years) of what the exemption already read. There have been discussions on this ‘TTS makes DRM removal legal’ issue for years now.
Bloody hell, I just spent an hour replying, and the damn thing vanished when I did a backspace. I don’t have time to rewrite everything so here is the READER’S DIGEST CONDENSED version.
Frode, a book has different rights, including audio rights, and if a publisher, audio producer, etc., hasn’t contracted specific rights, they can’t use them.
Right now, TTS hasn’t been legally clarified as a right. Some say it is an audio right, some an ebook right, and some a right on its own. Since it hasn’t been defined specifically, publishers are afraid to cut on TTS because they aren’t sure they have that right, and audio producers won’t lease audio rights if they feel that TTS is part of those rights and someone else is allowing TTS.
Movie rights are not included with TTS, but enabled ebooks are considered a hazard to movie rights. See this for a discussion.
http://newteleread.com/wordpress/2010/07/25/are-second-hand-e-books-possible/#comments
If you are interested in the legal issues of TTS as a right, I suggest the legal paper links at the bottom of my blog on the subject.
http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/02/authors-guild-versus-amazon-kindle-2.html
The disabled’s ability to read ebooks has never been at issue because several organizations and publishers are already working together to allow non-DRM ebooks for the disabled as well as creating electronic copies with no TTS of paper books. In the last few weeks, Teleread had an article on this subject. Go back and find it if you are interested.
Teddypig, the Library of Congress has never stepped in to define a right. When the Rosetta Books versus Random House lawsuit was in litigation, the LofC never clarified whether ebook rights were included in paper rights. When Amazon and the Authors Guild were fighting over the Kindle 2 and TTS, they never stepped in. I have never read of them ever stepping in.
If they don’t clarify the rights issue by making TTS a part of the ebook rights, they will be usurping rights from the copyright owners who may not be able to sell audio rights without TTS, and it will require a lawsuit to settle the issue once and for all.
I really don’t get what the issue is and why authors would not allow it. I remember as a child having many books read aloud to me by parents, teachers etc. and nobody paid extra to have that ‘right.’ Personally, I enjoy using text to speech at the gym so I can enjoy my books while I exercise. As I have already paid for the book, I don’t see why it is anybody’s business how I mechanically go about reading it. If they try and prevent me from reading it in my preferred way, I simply will not buy the book at all, there is plenty else to read these days. Their loss!
@Marilynn:
I just don’t buy it that the publishers `err on the side of caution’. They didn’t in other cases, like in the case of ebook rights for contracts they had before electronic books existed. Also see the Andrew Wiley case. The publishers cry that they have the ebook rights of these older contracts. Why would they do different in case of TTS. TTS isn’t even a right and they are not publishing TTS-enabled books, just normal ebooks. The TTS isn’t something a publisher adds, it is something the customer does. And the customer isn’t publishing anything so they are not infringing copyrights. They are just using the ebooks within the normal kinds of fair use (reading aloud).
I think the publishers just want to squeeze as much money out of the customer as they can without losing them. They always try to prevent the customers from doing additional things with their books so that they have the opportunity to let them pay twice or more for the same contents. They just want to give the customer as little as possible for his/her money. If the customer now wants to have his book read to him (or her) he must buy an additional audio book. (Of course these are separate rights that the publisher must have.) Of course they won’t tell you that this is the real motive.
As long as the customers have no choice they are stuck with these publishers and what they offer. As soon as there are better possibilities, like the possibility to remove the restrictions, or when publishers with better conditions come around, the other publishers will have lost their customer. And rightly so.
@Piet
Applying common sense to contract law never seems to give a good result, and this is a case of contract law.
The lawyers from the publishers say no to TTS, because they don’t want the liability should it be considered an audio right rather than part of the ebook right.
(It’s always easier for lawyers to say “no” rather than “yes”).
Certainly the Author’s Guild certainly considers TTS a seperate audio right, rather than part of the eBook right. See what happened when Amazon tried to unilaterally enable TTS on the Kindles
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/mar/01/authors-guild-blocks-kindle-voice
Piet, I am talking legal stuff, not the way things should be. In the real world legal stuff trumps common sense every time because you can be sued or put in jail if it isn’t legal. Here are the legal points again.
TTS HAS NEVER BEEN LEGALLY DEFINED AS A RIGHT. (See my article links to see that the publishing and legal experts confirm this.)
TO DEFINE TTS AS A RIGHT OR PART OF A RIGHT WILL REQUIRE AN APPALLINGLY EXPENSIVE COURT CASE.
TTS HAS MINIMAL VALUE IN COMPARISON TO THE REST OF THE BOOK’S RIGHTS.
IF A PUBLISHER OR AUDIO PRODUCER USES TTS AND THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR AN AUTHORS UNION DECIDES TO SUE OVER IT, THEY WILL LOSE BIG BUCKS LITIGATING OVER A RIGHT OR PART OF A RIGHT THAT IS WORTH VERY LITTLE.
In other words, TTS isn’t defined as a right or part of a right, it’s expensive to define it, and it’s worth so little right now that no one wants to fight out the issue.
Unless, the Government in some way or the other decides to have mercy and wave their magic wand to create a definition, TTS is in limbo and so are authors, readers, and the publishing industry.
The Government has not bothered to wave that magic wand over any issues created by the emergence of the ebook so I’m not holding my breath that it will in this case.
I agree that TTS hasn’t been defined as a separate right. So in fact there isn’t a legal problem. When TTS would be defined as a right things would change and that would be the proper time to restrict the rights of customers, if at all.
Besides that, the publishers are not using TTS, the customer does.
I agree that common sense doesn’t necessarily apply to legal issues. (I think it should!). But also lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to rule society.